Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 212 of 246 (137672)
08-28-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Loudmouth
08-27-2004 4:28 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
No that would be stupid of me. You have shown no lineages of one kind to another. You have shown only common speciation.
I understand you see different jaws and see reptile into mammal. I see just one kind therapsid. It's still just that. Also yes I have expanded the differences allowable in a kind. This is new to you and many creationists but I have come to this conclusion and work from this point. Indeed there must be an expansion. The fossil record shows it.
However still you all don't show what should be there. great numbersand kinds of great intermediaries. Not just jaws and feet.
You don't show a complete lineage only a partial one and I say not that.
Rob Try creatures alive today I suggest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 4:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Loudmouth, posted 08-31-2004 3:28 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 213 of 246 (137675)
08-28-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by RAZD
08-27-2004 5:47 PM


Re: KIND = CLASS .... confirmed?
What I say is a common answer to supporters of evolution in this field.
We mean that all the changes between a camel and its mouse like ancester should be evident in the fossil record. All the way to today and many examlpes of the different kinds along the way.
Instead zilch
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 5:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 5:28 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 215 by sidelined, posted 08-29-2004 6:59 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 219 of 246 (139199)
09-02-2004 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by crashfrog
08-27-2004 5:55 PM


I agree with everything you said and so should everybody. Indeed mating together is the whole point of speciation. If animals can mate together then they are the same kind. as for example they have produced offsping from a whale and a dolphine or something like that. Perhaps however speciation puts up some walls to mating,beyond behavior as since a whale was from the land originally I question if it could mate with its land ancester today or if that ancester had survived on the land. But perhaps it could.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2004 5:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 6:00 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 220 of 246 (139241)
09-02-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by sidelined
08-29-2004 6:59 AM


Re: KIND = CLASS .... confirmed?
I understand the problem of a incompletev record but it in fact very good. Great conclusions are drawn from it and so should a great conclusion that the abscence of intermediary's is leathal. Indeed evolutionists all by themselves deal with this. To say Just a little more time please is a cop-out..
New words here about what science is. SURMISE and FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE and PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE FROM A VAST NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC DISOPLINES.
All this is fine to creationists. Weighing, following, surmising evidence is legitamate in fields of study. HOWEVER IS IT SCIENCE. That is does it use the scientific method.
This is our discussion and I say the method is a package deal and only the whole package mahes it the method. I say evolution has used evidences but that is still not the special case of scientific evidence. Very different.
ROB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by sidelined, posted 08-29-2004 6:59 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 221 of 246 (139245)
09-02-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Mike_King
08-31-2004 2:32 PM


Back to the horsey's to show lineage. WOW.
Marine animal fossil could in a few cases show from point a to point b. I believe the whale was first a land critter. However the fossils would not be intermediate. That is just an interpretation. They in fact fit thier world fine and there is no agenda in speciation. And
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Mike_King, posted 08-31-2004 2:32 PM Mike_King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2004 4:32 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 222 of 246 (139250)
09-02-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Loudmouth
08-31-2004 3:28 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
Bone structure in mammals and repltiles is not evidence or lack of ancestry. That is just a human interpretation waiting to be overthrown. For example one kind of tree sloth has another vertebra then the other kind in south America. However they have the same ancestry. The bone stuctures are adaptations only. The perceived progression of structure is a misinterpretation. It is not forceful evidence (certainly not scientific).
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Loudmouth, posted 08-31-2004 3:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 225 of 246 (139620)
09-03-2004 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Loudmouth
09-02-2004 4:32 PM


Reaf your plankton thing but its just speciation and interpretation still to me.
About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood. There would be no intermediates in actuality. However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2004 4:32 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Loudmouth, posted 09-03-2004 3:43 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 228 of 246 (139892)
09-04-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Loudmouth
09-03-2004 3:43 PM


I offer only an alternative view (probably correct) on what must of happened to explain speciation.
There is a new thing now where divers can hold thier breaths longer and longer and they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater. No evolution just adaption of what exists already. Likewise with animals the adaption to the sea could be a smaller matter the one would think.
Anyway no one was there. And evidence is open to intetrpret
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Loudmouth, posted 09-03-2004 3:43 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by DrJones*, posted 09-04-2004 3:57 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 231 by Loudmouth, posted 09-07-2004 12:32 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 237 of 246 (143696)
09-21-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Chiroptera
09-21-2004 3:29 PM


The thing that is wrong with Toe is where it disagrees with the time honoured scriptures. Otherwise we are free to explore.
And that claims of Toe can be shown to be without evidence to persuade or down right wrong.
Creationists have said wrong things in fighting Toe. Like not being liberal enough with species change and getting hung up on kind. Even though human differences is striking and mush of been instant after the Ark.
Any speciation that is seen today or shown to have occured is just a special case. However Toe'ers take conviction from it of major change explaining origins.
Like Einstein correcting Newton. Newton stuff seemed to explain all but in fact was only a special case. The Einstein of Toe has not yet come.And it will be bad news for most Toe/origin thought.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2004 3:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 4:11 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024